Donate

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of Jurisdiction




New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of
                                                           Jurisdiction

                                                    By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                       November 25, 2015



New Hampshire state flag



Christopher Booth of Concord, New Hampshire, Cameron Elliott of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Robert Laity of Tonawanda, New York, filed ballot access challenges in New Hampshire against presidential contenders Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, arguing that neither of them is an Article II natural born citizen.  The challengers are correct.

Still, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission refused to rule on the question of whether the senators are natural born citizens because, chairman Brad Cook said, the issues were not under the panel’s purview.

“Our precedents say we don’t’ go there,” Cook said. “Personally, would I like the U.S. Supreme Court to decide these issues so we know what is, so it doesn’t keep coming up? Absolutely. Are we the vehicle to start that discussion? No, we’re not.”

http://www.wmur.com/politics/elections-panel-allows-cruz-rubio-to-appear-on-primary-ballot/36641254

~~~~~

The Commission refused to rule, basically saying that it does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Article II natural born citizens.  It also said that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

On the merits, neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are natural born citizens.  Neither the original nor amended Constitution defines a natural born citizen.  The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that we have to look outside the Constitution for its meaning.  It explained that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when the Constitution was adopted, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized if they met the requirements of naturalization Acts of Congress. Minor v. Happersett (1875).

Cruz was neither born in the country, nor was he born to two U.S. citizen parents.  He was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father.  Unlike Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were there to serve the military interest of the United States, neither of Cruz's parents were in Canada for purposes of serving in the U.S. military.  He therefore does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen.  Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress.  He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law.  A “naturalized born” citizen of the United States is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

Rubio was born in the country.  But he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.  He was born in the United States, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents.  Hence, he also does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen.  He is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that provides the only definition of the clause.  He needs the Fourteenth Amendment because, while born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.  Rubio is a "born citizen" of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. Simply being a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one a natural born citizen of the United States under the common law.
 
So, neither Cruz nor Rubio are natural born citizens.  It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 25, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

60 comments:

cfkerchner said...

The Three Legged Stool Test for "natural born Citizen": https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Robert Laity said...

I still do not agree that McCain is eligible. McCain was born in Colon,Panama which was not part of the Panama Canal Zone by treaty. The PCZ was not an incorporated territory of the US when McCain was born there and Military bases in foreign nations are not US soil. At one time, for a very short time, the Children born abroad to Americans were "considered" NBCs pursuant to the Naturalization Act of 1790.That continued for only five years until in 1795 congress repealed that provision in the NA of 1795 making children born abroad "Citizens" and not NBCs, even if the child's Parents were both citizens themselves.

Fogbow Foggy said...

It's unfortunate that you refuse to abide by the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Apuzzo. You accuse the New Hampshire Ballot Commission of treason for not exceeding their authority. You give no reasoned legal discussion, but instead level a simple, bald accusation of treason, and call their limit of jurisdiction a "guise". However, treason is very narrowly defined in Article 3, Section 3 of our Constitution, as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

How would you fit what the NHBC did under this definition? By claiming that two sitting United States Senators, Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio, are "enemies" of the United States? By claiming that the NHBC's decision not to exceed its authority is an "overt act" which shows they're "adhering" to Cruz and Rubio and giving them aid and comfort?

Good luck with that. I'd love to see you try to argue that in a court of law.

The Framers used a specific, extremely narrow definition of treason for exactly this reason: So that monomaniacal, delusional, angry people with no regard for the law would not cry "Treason!" every time they found something they thought was bad for the country. The birthers have raised this to an art form; anything they don't like is treason. Voting for Obama is treason. Supporting the constitutionally elected President of the United States is treason. Serving in the military is treason, unless you are Terry Lakin. Court rulings that natural born citizenship is jus soli are treason. Judges that follow Wong Kim Ark have committed treason. Everything is treason according to the birthers. Treason, treason, treason.

And like you, the birthers pay no heed to the actual definition of treason that's enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Then they have the gall to call themselves "patriots". Whiny crybaby hatriots is more accurate terminology.

You've written more than a million words on natural born citizenship, Mr. Apuzzo, all making the same inane and incorrect argument again and again and again. You don't need to repeat that argument in response to this comment. Instead, why don't you try explaining your understanding of the crime of treason as defined in the Constitution, and your outright rejection of that definition?

Zammo See said...

I notice that you haven't yet learned the definition of natural born citizen, Mario. It has been explained to you many times. Here it is. Anybody who is a citizen of the United States when they draw their first breath is a natural born citizen.

It is as simple as that. Not one decision of any court or legislature has been inconsistent with that simple definition.

Every time you have argued for your crazy mis-interpretation of the relevant parts of the constitution and statutes you have LOST the argument. You have lost all your court cases. You clearly do not understand the law.

So, the intriguing question is: will you EVER learn the simple, correct definition of a natural born citizen? Or will you continue to drone on and on and on with your nonsensical mis-interpretations, ignoring all counter-arguments, and claiming shrilly that you win? For the record: you cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won; winning an argument is achieved by convincing others of your point of view, which you have repeatedly failed to do.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Fogbow Foggy,

I of II

Your delusions and active imagination have really gotten a hold of you. You accuse me of not knowing the meaning of treason as defined in Article III. You state:

You've written more than a million words on natural born citizenship, Mr. Apuzzo, all making the same inane and incorrect argument again and again and again. You don't need to repeat that argument in response to this comment. Instead, why don't you try explaining your understanding of the crime of treason as defined in the Constitution, and your outright rejection of that definition?

~~~~~

What is ironic is that you then tell us that the Framers used “a specific, extremely narrow definition of treason in Article 3, Section 3 of our Constitution, as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Relying upon that definition, you attack me for not abiding by the Constitution for “accus[ing] the New Hampshire Ballot Commission of treason for not exceeding their authority.” You further assert that I did not give any reasoned legal discussion, but instead simply leveled “a simple, bald accusation of treason.” You continue that I have asserted that “two sitting United States Senators, Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio, are ‘enemies’ of the United States[] . . . [b]y claiming that the NHBC's decision not to exceed its authority is an ‘overt act’" which shows they're ‘adhering’ to Cruz and Rubio and giving them aid and comfort.” You then go into an attack against “the birthers” for accusing everyone who does not agree with them of treason. You ironically add: “And like you, the birthers pay no heed to the actual definition of treason that's enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.”

Let us examined what I really said: “So, neither Cruz nor Rubio are natural born citizens. It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.” As can be plainly seen, I did not say as you falsely maintain that two sitting United States Senators, Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio, are enemies of the United States. I did not say that the NHBC's decision is an overt act which shows they are adhering to Cruz and Rubio and giving them aid and comfort. But the most glaring error that you make is that I did not say that the NHBC committed “treason against the United States.” I did no more than what Chief Justice John Marshall did when delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Cohen v. Virginia. There he explained:

It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty.

Id. at 404.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

As can be seen, my statement regarding treason does not accuse anyone of committing treason against the United States. Rather, what I said is that it is treason against the Constitution and the rule of law for someone of authority to have jurisdiction and not exercise is so as to protect the Constitution and laws from active violation. Saying that “[i]t is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction,” is no different than Chief Justice Marshall said that for a court to have jurisdiction and deny that it has it is “treason to the Constitution.” To say that the action of the New Hampshire Ballot Election Commission is treason against the Constitution or the rule of law is not to say that the Commission committed “treason against the United States.” My statement is not within the Article III, but its propriety is governed entirely by how the United States Supreme Court used the expression in Cohen v. Virginia, which we saw used the very expression “treason to the Constitution,” which means to fail to “protect the Constitution and laws from active violation.” Id. at 407.

Now let us consider whether I am justified in making such a statement. Chief Justice Marshall further explained in Cohen:

That the United States form, for many and for most important purposes, a single nation has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one, and the government, which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation, and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared that, in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The Constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire -- for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate.

Id. at 413-14.

We also know of the constitutional role the states play in our national elections. In a government so constituted, is it unreasonable to ask that the State of New Hampshire or any other state do its part to enforce and protect the Constitution and the rule of law as they pertain to making sure that persons who would want their names placed upon the primary ballot for purposes of eventually drawing electors to elect them to the Office of President are natural born citizens and otherwise constitutionally eligible to have those electors elect them to that Office? I think not. Indeed, the states play a great and important constitutional role in the national elections for the Office of President. They are the gatekeepers of the integrity of our national elections. They should not so easily and lightly shrug off the great responsibilities that come with that role.

You conclude: “Then they [the birthers] have the gall to call themselves "patriots". Whiny crybaby hatriots is more accurate terminology.” Your performance here and elsewhere has demonstrated that you are projecting a bit, Foggy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Zammo See,

I of II

You have not yet learned the definition of natural born citizen which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"); Minor v. Happersett (1875) ("all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became. . . natives, or natural-born citizens"). Accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ("The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle"). It is as simple as that. Not one decision of any court or legislature has been inconsistent with that simple definition.

On the contrary, you maintain that a natural born citizen is anybody who is a citizen of the U.S. when they draw their first breath. Your position is baseless.

First, there is no evidence from the Founding and Framing that the Framers adopted any such definition of a natural born citizen.

Second, your first breath definition of a natural born citizen does not prevent one who takes a first breath as a citizen of the United States also from taking a first breath as a citizen of a foreign nation. The Framers relied upon the Electoral College and the natural born citizen clause to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Framers would never have allowed a natural born citizen who was to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have at birth allegiance to the United States as well as to some foreign power.

Third, neither early nor later Congress has ever said that is the definition.

Fourth, there is not one U.S. Supreme Court case that provides such a definition.

Fifth, your definition is no definition at all. It does not provide the birth circumstances to be fulfilled so that one may be accepted as “a citizen of the United States when they draw their first breath.” Trying to give some magical and natural quality with first breaths in life proves absolutely nothing.

Sixth, your fabricated definition is unconstitutional. The Constitution gave to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power to make uniform the rules of naturalization. Such power does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen. Congress can exercise that naturalization power to make persons, who without its grace would not be citizens at all, citizens of the United States at birth. Congress has exercised this power as early as 1790. Under your pretense, Congress would be given the power to make natural born citizens by simply making anyone it wants a citizen of the United States at birth. Congress could exercise that power as it pleased throughout history and into the future. We have seen periods when Congress through naturalization Acts treated children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents with different conditions precedent and subsequent and as “natural born citizens,” then “citizens of the United States,” then aliens, and then back to “citizens of the United States” at birth where it has remained to the present. The Framers surely would not have given Congress the power to turn natural born citizens on and off as it pleases. Such an interpretation of the Constitution and the natural born citizen clause is absurd and inadmissible.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

These simple truths remain regardless of some recent state courts and law review writers ruling in favor of Barack Obama and Ted Cruz based on your first breath thesis.
So, will you ever learn the simple, correct definition of a natural born citizen, or will you continue to whine and whine with your nonsensical and fabricated first breath definition of a natural born citizen, ignoring all historical and legal evidence which shows that your position is no more than wishful thinking motivated by a desire to see certain persons be eligible for political office who are not?

You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won, without providing historical and legal evidence and reason demonstrating that you have the winning argument. Winning is convincing others of your point of view, which you have failed to do, but which I have done through my research, evidence, writing, and reasoning.

cfkerchner said...

I'm sure the members of that NH Election Commission took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They obviously have not lived up to their oath nor made any attempt to even try to do so. CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Peter Lettkeman said...

Mario, CFKerchner,
Okay so I have read both dismissal requests by Cruz and Rubio. To me it looks like they both argue that it is only the Electoral College and the Congress when counting those votes to make the decision on whether a candidate is eligible. With that in mind how do we stop anyone from running for President who has foreign allegiance? We know the EC is a group of selected individuals and the Congress is not going to go against one of their own who is a candidate. Proof of that was in 2008 with SR 511 and McCain.

Would have the Ballot Law Commission have kicked someone off the ballot if they had been 26? How do we get Cruz and Rubio in to court for perjuring themselves with the application?

It is obvious the commission is not the venue yet that is where the ballot law in NH points you too? Why send you to them if they have no ability to do anything once they pay their money and the Secretary of State accepts the application?

ajtelles said...

A tacit stipulation
or
Singular U.S. citizenship vs. Dual U.S./foreign citizenship

Mario,

The language of Sen. Cruz in "The Response of Senator Ted Cruz to Petitions"
>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/11/rejoice-donald-trumps-ballot-access.html
reveals a tacit stipulation that is a serendipity not intended by Sen. Cruz's response.

By tacitly stipulating to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, Sen. Cruz in his response is agreeing that the U.S. citizenship of at least ONE parent is a constitutional apriori requirement. However, the Cruz response does NOT, because it can NOT, adduce support for ONLY one U.S. citizen parent. If it did, the response would need to clarify why ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents was NOT a constitutional apriori requirement. That is a no-go-zone for dual U.S./foreign citizenship proponents.

If one U.S. citizen parent (married or not) makes a child (born on U.S. OR foreign soil) a "natural born Citizen," what does birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents make a child?

Mario, the serendipity means that you win the who is a natural born Citizen argument a la Emer de Vattel and his The Law of Nations, as well as with Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

As you responded to Zammo See:

>>" You have not yet learned the definition of natural born citizen which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

>> "See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797)
>> ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

>> "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens");

>> "Minor v. Happersett (1875)
>> ("all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became. . . natives, or natural-born citizens").

>> "Accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
>> ("The child of an alien, if born in the country,
>> "is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen,
>> "and by operation of the same principle").

<< "It is as simple as that.
>> "Not one decision of any court or legislature has been inconsistent with that simple definition."


The Wong Kim Ark Court, which usurped the Congress with language granting citizenship ipso facto to children born on U.S. soil to legal alien residents, confirms that you have won the debate because the language shows that Sen. Rubio is also not eligible.

>> "The child of an alien, if born in the country,
>> "is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen,..."

The child born on U.S. soil to two married parents who are legal alien residents "...is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen."

If one U.S. citizen parent (married or not) makes a child (born on U.S. OR foreign soil) a "natural born Citizen," what does birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents make a child?

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert Laity,

John McCain was born in Panama to U.S citizen parents where were serving the armies of the state. He is therefore reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. That makes him a natural born citizen. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) ( “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens;” Section 217 ("Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory").

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

The point that Obots hide is that there is no doubt about who is a natural born citizen of the United States. That is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. The doubts have been about who is a citizen of the United States. If one is a natural born citizen there is no doubt that one is ipso facto a citizen of the United States. If one is not a natural born citizen, then there can be doubts whether that person is a citizen of the United States. Hence, the doubts regarding whether one is a citizen of the United States arise only if one is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Virginia Minor, born in the country to parents who were its citizens, was a natural born citizen of the United States. Hence, she was without any doubt a citizen of the United States because she was a natural born citizen of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to non-U.S. citizen parents, was not a natural born citizen of the United States and so there were doubts about whether he was a citizen of the United States. In fact, the United States argued and Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan in dissent agreed that he was not a citizen of the United States. Justice Gray held that he was just as much a citizen of the United States as a natural born citizen of the United States, by the simple and sufficient fact of being born in the United States while "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Indeed, Justice Gray held that Wong was a citizen of the United States, but he did not hold that he was a natural born citizen. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not affect Minor's definition of a natural born citizen. That definition survived Wong Kim Ark and today is still a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

ajtelles said...

Dittos...

1/

Mario,

Dittos to the 3rd sentence of your first paragraph"

>> "The doubts have been about who is a citizen of the United States."

[...snip...]

Dittos also to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of the third paragraph:

>> "In fact, the United States argued[,] and Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan in dissent agreed[,] that he was not a citizen of the United States.

>> "Justice Gray held that he was just as much a citizen of the United States as a natural born citizen of the United States, by the simple and sufficient fact of being born in the United States while "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

>> "Indeed, Justice Gray held that Wong was a citizen of the United States, but he did not hold that he was a natural born citizen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now, my point is this.

This incessant debate would be getting to resolution if only the "natural born Citizen" new meaning gnostic neobirthers would simply adduce supporting sources that affirm their exposition of the 2000s myth, the 2000s theory, that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married or not, was Emer de Vattel's point for writing "...born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens," AND John Jay's "original genesis original intent" for underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 215, 1787 note to George Washington.

Maybe somebody who knows Sen. Cruz can ask him why ONLY one U.S. citizen parent makes him a "natural born Citizen" and why the higher hurdle of ONLY two U.S. citizens is a higher hurdle that he does not want to discuss?

Paragraph five of I. Introduction says:

>> "In any event, there is no doubt that Petitioners' challenge to Senator Cruz's constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President is baseless: Senator Cruz is unquestionably a "natural born Citizen."

>> "Every single reliable authority has confirmed that a "natural born Citizen" is a person who was a citizen at birth--that is, a person who does not need to go through naturalization proceedings to become a citizen.

>> "Hence, Senator Cruz was undoubtedly a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth, because his mother was a U.S. citizen--regardless of the fact that his mother happened to be outside of the United States when Senator Cruz was born. Thus, he is a "natural born Citizen" eligible to serve as President of the United States."

Paragraph one of II. Statement of Facts says:

>> "There are no relevant, disputed facts at issue in this case.

>> "It is undisputed that Senator Cruz was born to a U.S citizen who happened to be in Canada at the time she gave birth to Senator Cruz.

>> "It is undisputed that Senator Cruz's mother was physically present in the United States for more than ten years, including at least five years after attaining the age of fourteen, prior to giving birth to Senator Cruz.

>> "It is also undisputed that at least two of the Petitioners--Carmon Elliot and Robert C. Laity--are not residents of New Hampshire."Dittos...

ajtelles said...

Dittos...

2/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Senator Cruz's response tacitly stipulates that ONLY one U.S. citizen is the constitutional requirement when it says that"..., Senator Cruz was undoubtedly a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth, because his mother was a U.S. citizen--regardless of the fact that...."

Senator Cruz's response mentions ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, his U.S. citizen mother, and does not include his alien citizen father, and it does not mention his father because adducing his alien father would lose the argument for him.

Senator Cruz's response ignores the Article II Section 1 clause 5 requirement of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S citizen married parents, and, after ignoring his father, Senator Cruz's response segues into the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act statute language that requires being physically present in the U.S. for ten years after attaining the age of fourteen before giving birth to Senator Cruz.

Do Senator Cruz and his lawyers not know that, if both of his parents were U.S. citizens and domiciled in a foreign country, their child would a statute "citizen," a 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" and NOT a 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" and so not eligible to serve as President?

Do Senator Cruz and his lawyers not know that, according to the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, that, because he was born on foreign soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, Senator Cruz is ONLY a U.S. "citizen" and NOT a U.S. "natural born Citizen" and so not eligible to serve as President?

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Howard Appel said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

My name is Howard M. Appel and I have been following this discussion re: eligibility for a number of years, since 2008. You stated above, and I quote you, “You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won, without providing historical and legal evidence and reason demonstrating that you have the winning argument. Winning is convincing others of your point of view, which you have failed to do, but which I have done through my research, evidence, writing, and reasoning.”

I agree with your argument that “winning is convincing others of your point of view.” Accordingly, would you please be so kind as to give citation to all of the legal cases where a real Federal, State, Territorial or UCMJ court (or other similar court) hearing the matter agreed with your definition of a “natural born citizen.”

By real court, I mean an Article III Court or any court created pursuant to a grant of authority by the US Government or any State or Territorial Government. That excludes Pastor Manning’s trial as being considered to have been held before a legitimate court. IT WAS NOT.

Similarly, would you please be so kind as to give a citation to all of the legal cases where a real court hearing the matter find any American citizen guilty of treason, or indeed, any real court found anyone guilty of treason.

I am confident that you will take this opportunity to show me, and the rest of my fellow travelers, just how smart and right you are and that the rest of us are wrong and stupid.

I look forward to your reply and thank you for your anticipated courtesy in directly answering the questions posed to you.

Howard Michael Appel, CA SBN 158674
howardappel@yahoo.com
howardmappel@gmail.com

Howard Appel said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

My name is Howard M. Appel and I have been following this discussion re: eligibility for a number of years, since 2008. You stated above, and I quote you, “You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won, without providing historical and legal evidence and reason demonstrating that you have the winning argument. Winning is convincing others of your point of view, which you have failed to do, but which I have done through my research, evidence, writing, and reasoning.”

I agree with your argument that “winning is convincing others of your point of view.” Accordingly, would you please be so kind as to give citation to all of the legal cases where a real Federal, State, Territorial or UCMJ court (or other similar court) hearing the matter agreed with your definition of a “natural born citizen.”

By real court, I mean an Article III Court or any court created pursuant to a grant of authority by the US Government or any State or Territorial Government. That excludes Pastor Manning’s trial as being considered to have been held before a legitimate court. IT WAS NOT.

Similarly, would you please be so kind as to give a citation to all of the legal cases where a real court hearing the matter find any American citizen guilty of treason, or indeed, any real court found anyone guilty of treason.

I am confident that you will take this opportunity to show me, and the rest of my fellow travelers, just how smart and right you are and that the rest of us are wrong and stupid.

I look forward to your reply and thank you for your anticipated courtesy in directly answering the questions posed to you.

Howard Michael Appel, CA SBN 158674
howardappel@yahoo.com
howardmappel@gmail.com

ajtelles said...

"segues"...

Mario,

To clarify for those who do not know the point of the naturalization statute language, the third to the last paragraph which contains the "segue" sentence should include the reference to the mother.

>> "...his father, Senator Cruz's response segues into the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act statute language that requires" the mother "being physically present in the U.S. for ten years after attaining the age of fourteen before giving birth to Senator Cruz."

Related to Senator Cruz's response regarding ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, as the boss said in "Cool Hand Luke" with Paul Newman when chastising the prisoners, "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

What we've got here from Senator Cruz is deliberate, intentional and obfuscatory failure to communicate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, i.e., the truth which has no agenda other than to inform, enlighten and liberate the speaker and the listener.

PS.

CDR Charles Kerchner's Three Legged Stool test for "nbC" which he linked to in the first comment on this thread is appropriate:
>> https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

Also appropriate are the "nbC" flag diagrams here:
>> http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

cfkerchner said...

I think this Supreme Court case, Rogers v Bellei (1971), is helpful as to proving Citizens at Birth due to a statutory law are "naturalized Citizens". It shows similar facts at birth for that person similar to the status of Ted Cruz's birth and it held that the person was not even a Citizen at all: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html Of course the laws have changed as to who is a Citizen at birth. But Ted Cruz and his supporters and of course the OBOTS conflate "Citizen" at Birth with "natural born Citizen" at Birth. They ignore adjectives and set theory logic. If a persons recognized citizenship status can be changed by Congress then they are not a natural born Citizen but a naturalized Citizen. Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. A "natural born Citizen" is a Citizen at Birth but not all Citizens at Birth are "natural born Citizens". See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

cfkerchner said...

I guess I should have said if Cruz was born before the Bellei decision then he would not have been a citizen at all. Hopefully Mario can clarify.

Another good article on the subject: http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/25/of-naturalized-and-natural-born-the-courts-point-of-view/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Howard Appel,

Is is evident that you also cannot prove me wrong, for you did not present any argument here proving me wrong.

cfkerchner said...

"fellow travelers" ... hmmh. That term has long be associated with communists and communist front groups. Some of Obama's mentors and close associates were definitely "fellow travelers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller

leo derosia said...

I live in nh and these ballot guys are clowns. Just let everyone on the frigging ballot because we have worthless hacks on the commission...my wife was born in Philippines to a alien father so she should obviously be allowed on nh ballot because according to these jackals it would take a convincing case for them to restrict who is allowed. Why even bother with the charade

Zammo See said...

No, Mario, you do not understand how arguments work.

You are stating that almost everybody who has an informed opinion on this issue is wrong, except for you and a small coterie of contrarians such as Art Telles and David Farrar, and, of course, the racist gang of the birther movement. The burden of proof lies on you and your ilk, not on me or the mainstream. He who makes exceptional claims (you) must produce exceptional evidence. ALL your evidence has been demonstrated to be either misrepresentations or misinterpretations. I see no purpose in my retrieving and repeating those arguments because you either cannot or refuse to understand them.

In your eyes, no opponent can ever win an argument with you because you will never admit defeat. But you are Monty Python's black knight in debate: as every limb of your argument is chopped away, you continue to screech "I win! I win!"

There is no "definition" of natural born citizen. You have never found one; you have only concocted your own fabulations. It is not a term of art. It is simple English. It means "born like that". My description and definition is consistent with the Constitution and EVERY case that has come before courts, and is consistent with the opinions of at least 99% of competent jurists.

You mistake quantity for quality. More nonsense thrown onto a midden of nonsense leaves you with a larger midden of nonsense, not a mountain of truth.

Please put your undoubted talents to something more productive. Even if there were any remote chance that your interpretation could be correct, the argument is lost. What matters is what the courts, the legislature and the people believe. The people will vote for whomever they wish, and Congress with have the final verdict on eligibility. Accept that, that's democracy.

Campaign for something worthwhile and achievable.

Carlyle said...

Cruz and Rubio are each more eligible than The Obamessiah. [/snark]

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Peter Lettkeman,

You said:

Would have the Ballot Law Commission have kicked someone off the ballot if they had been 26? How do we get Cruz and Rubio in to court for perjuring themselves with the application?

~~~~~

Of course the New Hampshire Ballot Commission would have kicked someone off the presidential election ballot if that person had been only 26 years old and they would not have made one peep about jurisdiction while doing so. And that simple point demonstrates the dishonesty.

Article II requires that, in addition to having to be a natural born citizen, a would-be president must be at least 35 years of age and at least 14 years a resident within the United States. These political actors will readily admit that they will prevent any such candidate, i.e., one where easy arithmetic applied to age or time of residence shows they are not eligible, from being placed on a presidential election ballot. In such case, they will be more than happy to tell as many people as possible that they are following their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the integrity and sanctity of the election process. They have no problem with jurisdiction in those "easy" cases. But when it comes to enforcing the other requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the natural born citizen clause, they suddenly lose their love of Constitution and jurisdiction.

What I believe is the explanation for their inconsistency and dishonesty is that no major political party would dare run someone who the whole world, by doing simple math, can figure out is not constitutionally eligible. (It's not hard to figure out someone is not yet 35 years old.) After all, numbers alone do not lie. But a major political party, to win an election and thereby gain political power and all the benefits that come with it, will, if it becomes necessary, forsake the Framers' purpose for requiring that future Presidents be natural born citizens which was to protect the republic's national security, and run and/or support a person for President who the people -- because of the ease by which they can be manipulated through words, the media, and by "official" spokespersons such as persons who have held important political positions and who just happen to write articles for "prestigious" law reviews on the matter --cannot easily figure out is or is not a natural born citizen. This is the more true given that these parties know that the courts will do nothing about it should someone challenge their constitutional eligibility on the ground that such candidate is not a natural born citizen.

Hence, with the imprimatur of a major political party on such ineligible candidates, these political actors run chicken for the sake of protecting their political and economic futures, wash their hands, and just say they have no jurisdiction. In other words, what it comes down to in these actors' minds is two simple questions: what do I have to gain by acting or not acting and what do I have to lose by acting or not acting. Evidently, there is too much to lose for those in positions of power to act on the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen. This is the political state in which we find our republic.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Zammo See,

I see that you still are not able to articulate any legal argument that refutes mine.

I also see that you believe that we live in a country in which legal decisions are driven by mob rule rather than by the Constitution and the law.

ajtelles said...

"...no definition..."

Mario,

Zammo See said on November 26, 2015 at 6:16 AM that natural born Citizen has not been defined.

>> "There is no "definition" of natural born citizen.
>> "You have never found one;
>> "you have only concocted your own fabulations.
>> "It is not a term of art.
>> "It is simple English."

And then Zammo See invents his own definition:

>> "It means "born like that".
>> "My description and definition is consistent with the Constitution
>> "and EVERY case that has come before courts,
>> "and is consistent with the opinions of at least 99% of competent jurists."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hmm.... "born like that" means what Zammo See?

I wonder what questions John Jay in 1787 (and the Minor v. Happersett Court in 1875) would have asked about where "that" was born and to whom "that" was born?

Here are four possible questions for Zammo See and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning and gnostic (not "agnostic" but "gnostic") neobirthers who invent their own definitions to justify dual U.S./foreign citizenship and ONLY one or zero U.S. citizen parents because it suits their chosen candidate.

1_Does "born" mean born ONLY on U.S. soil?
1_Jay would say, yes, of course! Ditto that.

2_Does "born" mean can be born EITHER on U.S. soil OR on foreign soil?
2_Jay would say, no, of course not! That's nuts.

3_Does "born" mean born ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents?
3_Jay would say, yes, of course! Ditto that.

4_Does "born" mean can be born to EITHER two U.S. citizen married parents (42 of 44 U.S. Presidents) OR born to one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married (Cruz, Obama) OR born to zero U.S. citizen parents (Rubio, Jindal)?

4_Jay would say, no, of course not!
EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents??? In 1787??? That's nuts.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, Zammo See and gnostic neobirthers, which definition of "natural born Citizen" would John Jay have affirmed in 1787? Which definition did the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court affirm?

High Hurdle Yes = ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.
Low Hurdle No = BOTH singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship

High Hurdle Yes = ONLY birth on U.S. soil.
Low Hurdle No = BOTH birth on U.S. soil OR birth on foreign soil.

High Hurdle Yes = ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.
Low Hurdle No = EITHER birth to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not married.

Also, Zammo See, if you can do it coherently, please define and defend the gnostic neobirther theory, the gnostic neobirther myth, of why the broad way "lower hurdle" of dual U.S./foreign citizenship AND of birth on U.S. OR foreign soil AND of birth to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not, is superior to the restrictive and narrow way "higher hurdle" of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship AND ONLY birth on U.S. soil AND ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Maybe Zammo See and other "nbC" new meaning and gnostic neobirthers can throw the bones or look at the tea leaves and clarify for us what John Jay and the Minor Court affirmed: the restrictive "narrow way" of the higher hurdle or the "broad way" of the lower hurdle?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS. Mario,

I really liked your response to Peter Lettkeman on November 26, 2015 at 10:47 AM.

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

You have just got to love this from Zammo See, who as we have seen cannot see. On Thanksgiving Day, he serves:

There is no "definition" of natural born citizen. You have never found one; you have only concocted your own fabulations. It is not a term of art. It is simple English. It means "born like that". My description and definition is consistent with the Constitution and EVERY case that has come before courts, and is consistent with the opinions of at least 99% of competent jurists.

~~~~~

He admits that he is not aware of any definition of a natural born citizen, he has never found one, and that the clause is not a term of art. Then, after just informing us of all that, he tells us about his "definition," saying it is consistent with the Constitution. So now he tells us that he just made up his own definition which is consistent with the Constitution. But first he said no definition of the clause existed so how can he know what the Constitution required so that he can conclude that his made up definition is consistent with the Constitution? Logically, he cannot which shows you how much of a bullshitter this Zammo Who Cannot See is.

Finally, this clown gave us his definition. Here it is: "Anybody who is a citizen of the United States when they draw their first breath is a natural born citizen." This fool takes a necessary condition for being a natural born citizen and converts it into a sufficient one.

I just love it when Obots venture out of their comfort zones (tribunals and Obot blogs) and comment here. Here they are put to the real test. As you can see, they drop like flies.

cfkerchner said...

The definition of "natural born Citizen" has been very clearly written in the past in the great legal treatise of the enlightenment era -- Emer de Vattel's "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" which was widely read and used by our nation's founders and our Constitution's framers. See: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html Even the far-left progressive Hillary Clinton recognized the great influence Vattel's writings had on the founding of our nation and our founding documents: https://www.scribd.com/collections/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

natural born citizen party said...

notice:
Supplemental filing USCA First Circuit 15-2379-OP
"In re": Natural Born Citizen Party National Committee, et al."
Mandamus to remove aka Obama/Soetoro and every subordinate ineligible appointed constitutional officer; and stay 2016 General Federal Election pending constitutional re-census, reapportionment, and redistricting.

Zammo See said...

No, Mario, I do not present legal arguments.

The main reason is that you are Monty Python's black knight in this debate. Every limb of your argument has been hacked off in this and other forums. I see no leg or arm that deserves further attack.

If you do not agree with this, I challenge you: show us one other forum where a significant number of competent jurists have agreed with the thrust of your arguments. You claim to win legal arguments about eligibility: so show us those wins. Where are your victories?

As for you asserting that I believe in mob rule; please don't be absurd. I cherish both democracy and the rule of law. The people have spoken: they wanted Mr. Obama as the President. The law has spoken, both in the courts rejection of any challenges to Mr. Obama's eligibility, and in Congress twice approving his election. That is not mob rule.

So, on the contrary, it is you who wish your little anti-democratic mob to prevail. You believe that your serially refuted arguments should override the country's democratic and legal processes.

You clearly misunderstand the English language as badly as you misunderstand the Constitution and law. I did not give you a definition of a natural born citizen. I simply explained what it means. My explanation is consistent with all settled law and judgments. Yours is not.

To be called a bullshitter by you must be a mark of great honor. Never have I been applauded in such a skill by a widely acknowledged master of that art. I will ignore your calling me a fool as the cry of a desperate man, lost in his own fantasy world.

Carlyle said...

Hey Zammo See - your "definition" of NBC is so wide that it is hardly restrictive at all. Do you really think the Founders were so dumb and careless that they wasted their time on such drivel? Don't you think they meant to be quite exclusive? Don't you think they wanted to restrict the presidency to a smaller cadre of people who were citizens to the core, in every way possible? Otherwise why waste the paper and ink to craft such a provision?

Justin said...

"I did not give you a definition of a natural born citizen. I simply explained what it means."

Are you freaking serious? A definition is a statement of the MEANING of a term!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Zammo See desperately strikes again.

He starts his piece:

No, Mario, I do not present legal arguments. The main reason is that you are Monty Python's black knight in this debate. Every limb of your argument has been hacked off in this and other forums. I see no leg or arm that deserves further attack.

~~~~~

We are debating what the constitutional meaning of an Article II natural born citizen is. That is a project which requires not only historical analysis, but, undoubtedly, also “legal arguments.” After all, can anyone deny that the U.S. Supreme Court engages in legal argument when interpreting the Constitution? Of course not, for the Constitution is built on legal argument. I have informed Zammo See that he does not present any legal argument that refutes mine. Mr. See concedes that he does “not present legal arguments.” Now that is precious.

Mr. See refers to Monty Python's black knight, stating “[e]very limb of your argument has been hacked off in this and other forums. I see no leg or arm that deserves further attack.” First, Mr. See admits that he has offered nothing in response to my argument, operating under the false assumption that nothing is needed in that regard. Second, that surely sounds like something that I can tell Mr. See and his buddies from Fogbow which is the place where the black night first rode into the natural born citizen debate. Indeed, Mr. See himself is living proof of that, for he is not able to articulate any legal argument that refutes mine.

Mr. See challenges me:

If you do not agree with this, I challenge you: show us one other forum where a significant number of competent jurists have agreed with the thrust of your arguments. You claim to win legal arguments about eligibility: so show us those wins. Where are your victories?

~~~~~

The challenge is met rather simply. First, Mr. See fails to show that those other forums have addressed my legal arguments. Second, Mr. See is not able to articulate a legal argument which refutes mine.

Mr. See plays lip service to the rule of law and deposits:

As for you asserting that I believe in mob rule; please don't be absurd. I cherish both democracy and the rule of law. The people have spoken: they wanted Mr. Obama as the President. The law has spoken, both in the courts rejection of any challenges to Mr. Obama's eligibility, and in Congress twice approving his election. That is not mob rule. So, on the contrary, it is you who wish your little anti-democratic mob to prevail. You believe that your serially refuted arguments should override the country's democratic and legal processes.

~~~~~

Anybody who has followed the natural born citizen debate knows that neither the courts, the Electoral College, nor Congress have moved a finger on the question of the meaning of a natural born citizen just because “[t]he people have spoken.” Yes, indeed, vox populi, vox Dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God). Yes, Mr. See is so wanting on the fundamental understanding of the rule of law that he mistakens the results of a popular election for the rule of law. If an election was the equivalent of the rule of law, the Framers would not have said that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The Framers could not stop the people from electing a person to be their President who was not a natural born citizen, but they surely could tell them that to do so was unconstitutional.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Mr. See continues with more gems:

You clearly misunderstand the English language as badly as you misunderstand the Constitution and law. I did not give you a definition of a natural born citizen. I simply explained what it means. My explanation is consistent with all settled law and judgments. Yours is not.

~~~~~

This is really good given that Mr. See claims that he did not give a definition of a natural born citizen, but then at the same times he concedes that he “simply explained what it means.” It sure looks like Mr. See does not know the definition of the words “definition” and “meaning. “Definition” is a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary. “Meaning” is what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action. So, definition and meaning as words signify the same thing. A definition gives the meaning and the meaning gives the definition. Mr. See’s performance becomes the more hilarious given that he starts by telling us that I clearly misunderstand the English language.

Mr. See then wants to convince us that he is a humble, resilient, and a forgiving man of biblical proportions and hence to be believed, when he finishes his performance thus:

To be called a bullshitter by you must be a mark of great honor. Never have I been applauded in such a skill by a widely acknowledged master of that art. I will ignore your calling me a fool as the cry of a desperate man, lost in his own fantasy world.

~~~~~

So, let us reflect, what has Zammo See, who really cannot see, offered us? The question is pregnant with the answer: bullshit.

Teo Bear said...

Mario,

It isle Teo Bear, and it mistime i hid behind my moniker long enough, as a citizen of Flordia I want want you to represent me in an eligibility lawsuit against Marco Rubio. This is going toy coat me as I work for the sate of Florida. Theodore Thomas Moran. As in Purpra e Moran v Obama.

Teo Bear said...

Mario 9047031808

Ray said...

In a case involving the Ballot Law Commission the New Hampshire Supreme Court said "Even assuming the absence of a statutory right of appeal, this court cannot be divested of its power to correct errors of law and other abuses by writ of certiorari... " Malcolm Tink Taylor v. Ballot Law Commission, 118 N.H. 671 (1978), accessed at http://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/1978/78-241-0.html

Zammo See said...

Mario, you are having difficulty understanding English, aren't you?

Of course, I was not being genuinely humble when commenting approvingly on you calling me a bullshitter. I think "irony" is one of the words you need to look up in your dictionary.

Now, to the substantive point. I challenged you to show any competent jurists who agree with your arguments. I exclude your fans Farrar, Telles and Kerchner; those three are not jurists. You dodged that challenge.

Instead you stated: "First, Mr. See fails to show that those other forums have addressed my legal arguments." Oh, please don't be absurd Mario! Again you misunderstand English as you misunderstand both constitutional and statute law. I did NOT mention internet forums. I asked you to demonstrate that any *competent jurists* agree with you. There are probably more than a million qualified lawyers in the United States (of varying degrees of status and competence). If your arguments have validity, surely at least (say) 1% of those lawyers would be interested in and accept your arguments, so you should be able to produce a few of those 100,000 names?

And, anyway, to claim that those forums have not addressed your legal arguments is an untruth that is not to your credit and I hope you will feel the honorable desire to retract that assertion. You might not accept the counter-arguments, but every single point you have made has been addressed and countered. The fact of your refusal to agree with the counter-arguments does not mean that they were not made.

Then you state: "Second, Mr. See is not able to articulate a legal argument which refutes mine."

Oh nuts, Mario! Did you learn no logical reasoning at school or law school? The fact that I *choose* not to articulate a legal argument in no way implies that I *cannot*. Perhaps this problem with modal logic is one of the sources of your confusion? It underlies some of your misinterpretations of legal opinions.

Of course I *could* articulate legal arguments that refute yours, but I see no purpose in challenging the Black Knight of Citizenship Law when I can see that he has no limbs left. Squeaking "I win!" in the face of fact does not make you a winner any more than it made Monty Python's character a winner.

But can *I* squeak "I win!" and be a winner? I believe I can, because the country, its legislature, its courts, even its internet forums (that you value so highly) agree with my position. And the fact that Mr. Obama is the President accepted by Congress (which, as you know, makes the final judgment on eligibility and includes many lawyers) means that "my side" has won.

So, let's not be diverted by what legal arguments I might choose or not choose to make. You ducked my challenge. It is only reasonable to infer that this indicates that you concede the point.

Or will you show us the competent jurists who have been swayed by your arguments? A few professors of law, some senior judges, a handful of congressmen? Have any emailed you to express their agreement?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. See, Who Not Only Cannot See, But Also Cannot Argue,

You still have not articulated anything here that resembles any legal argument. Hence, there is nothing to which I can respond. Other than a lot of empty talk, the closest that you come to making a legal argument is saying that "the fact that Mr. Obama is the President accepted by Congress (which, as you know, makes the final judgment on eligibility and includes many lawyers) means that 'my side' has won." So you want us to believe that a natural born citizen is defined as one who wins a presidential election?

You mentioned modal logic. You should put modal logic to good use like using it to understand that, while it is true that it is necessary that a natural born citizen be a born citizen, and therefore it is not possible that a natural born citizen is not a born citizen, being a born citizen does not prove that one is a natural born citizen.

May I suggest that you go back to one of those law schools that you speak about so proudly. While there, ask them to give you a refresher course on making a legal argument.

Carlyle said...

It appears Mr. See is a proponent of "mob rule". By his logic, negroes are an inferior species and not subject to the normal civil rights available to white people. After all, this was once common knowledge and "everybody" agreed with it and accepted it. There were only a few "radicals" at first who questioned this. They were roundly ridiculed by the establishment because they were in obtuse disagreement with received wisdom. Perhaps Mr. See needs to go back to school, retake any history classes he slept through, and learn that it is not unusual for the majority to be wrong - often very wrong.

Further, I notice he has refused to answer my question about the exclusionary nature of the NBC clause. Or perhaps he thinks the Founding Fathers were all politically correct, proponents of affirmative action, and socially multi-culti.

Carlyle said...

continued - - -

I suppose that one can make an argument that in modern times, and as favoring modern sensibilities, the NBC clause is antiquated and needs to be replaced or removed. But I don't see how it is possible to mis-interpret it or bulldoze over it. So until it is changed, as a constitutionalist, I think it is imperative to follow it.

If we allow ourselves to pick and choose the constitutional elements we like, we are in essence reduced to nothing more than mob rule. But, it seems that is what Mr. See likes and wants.

Charles 17121 said...

Question : Did not the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution give Newly Freed Slaves the right to US Citizenship ? The Fourteenth Amendment did not give a pathway to US Citizenship to babies born on US Soil to non US Citizen parents . The so called Anchor babies . Even Mario Apuzzo Esq. gets it wrong . Donald Trump was right , Anchor Babies are a misreading of the Fourteenth Amendment by both politicians and the US Supreme Court .

Charles 17121 said...

Mr. See is one who believes in the lie that the US is a democracy with mob rule and not a Constitutional Republic with Laws . The US Constitution is all about defending the rights of the individual . The US Constitution does not defend the right of the majority . Like so many in this country , Mr See has been brain washed by the educational system and lame stream media in this country.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Charles 17121,

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 said: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

As we can see, Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment abandoned the negative "not subject to any foreign power" language and adopted the more liberal affirmative language of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language.

The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's "jurisdiction" clause to mean merely subject to the laws of the United States. Since it found that even alien parents could give birth to children in the United States who could be citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, it did qualify its definition of jurisdiction by also requiring that the child's parents be domiciled and permanently residing in the United States, and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. In other words, the Court required that if one was to be entitled to the status of a "citizen" of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be conflated, confounded, and confused with an Article II "natural born citizen" of the United States), at a minimum one had to be born in the United States while his or her parents were subject to the full power and authority of the United States, domiciled and permanently residing in the United States, and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders.

The Fourteenth Amendment also provides at Section 5: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." It can be reasonably argued that Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude by appropriate statute anyone from its birthright citizenship benefits who is born to parents who it considers as not being domiciled and permanently residing in the United States. This power would be in effect no different than that which Congress could utilize to pass a statute prohibiting a child born in the United States to a foreign ambassador or a military invader from being a citizen of the United States. This power, which can be coined a "Wong Kim Ark citizenship exclusion," can be asserted not only directly under the very text of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also indirectly under Congress's power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. . . throughout the United States." After all, anyone who is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States and is made a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress is in truth naturalized to be a citizen of the United States albeit at birth. Section 8, Clause 18 of Article I also provides that Congress shall have the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof."

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Our U.S. Supreme Court has consistently found that Congress has great plenary powers over citizenship, immigration, and naturalization matters. Enforcing the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof on the question of who shall be admitted to citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdiction clause should pass constitutional muster, provided such laws are not discriminatory as to defeat the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment which was to remove race, color, and previous condition of servitude as disqualifying factors for acquiring the status of a citizen of the United States.

Through such appropriate legislation, Congress could determine whether a person who either enters the United States illegally or entered legally and then whose presence becomes illegal is to be considered as being domiciled and legally residing in the United States. If Congress answers “no,” then children born to such persons would not be citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such children, to become citizens of the United States, would either have to wait until their parents naturalized during their minority, or file their own naturalization petition upon reaching the age of majority. In the meantime, both the parents and the children would be subject to removal from the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Charles 17121,

You said: "The US Constitution is all about defending the rights of the individual . The US Constitution does not defend the right of the majority."

I think the correct way to say it is that the U.S. Constitution is not only about defending and protecting the rights of the majority, but also those of the individual.

Charles 17121 said...

Mario , The United States Of America is not a democracy with mob rule , The United States Of America is a Constitutional Republic with laws . You are falling into the liberal trap when you use the word majority as in majority rules when it come to describing the US form of government . The founding Fathers knew that a democracy form of government would not work so they gave us a Constitutional Republic with laws .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Charles 17121,

You are arguing against a position that you say I have taken which I never have. Please provide a quote from me which comes anywhere close to what you ascribe to me.

Unknown said...

From the article:
It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.
~~~~~
As you guys go crying and screaming about courts not reaching the merits, perhaps you should recall what happened when they did.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

I am not aware of any court having taken jurisdiction on the question of whether Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. Maybe you can cite one for us.

natural born citizen party said...

Immigration Case on Track for 2016 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
By Greg Stohr
http://bloom.bg/1MVxbwX
Bloomberg


Sent from my iPhone

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown a/k/a NotLinda, a/k/a brygenon at the Fogbow, a/k/a Bryan Gene Olson, a/k/a/ who knows what else,

You are welcome to make any legal arguments that you want here, even ones that attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong. But I will not allow you to troll this article or my blog. You have been trolling me and the internet for 7 years and I will not allow you to do it here.

I spend much time in writing my articles. They are serious work. So, if you want to comment here, do the same.

Kanbun said...

Hi Mario,

I so enjoy reading your writings, this one included.

All of the spinners that conflate citizen and natural born citizen, or simply make some constructed scenario where some form of naturalization is therefore a natural born citizen, of course without calling the person's citizenship one of naturalization. A recent example of this is the justification for Cruz's eligibility by Katyal and Clement in the Harvard Law Review (March 11, 2015). They cite "sources routinely used to interpret the constitution" (whatever those are) that a natural born citizen is "someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." These fools create the notion that there exists some formality to naturalization greater than that upon which Cruz's citizenship depends in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, while not a "proceeding" as such, a formality of naturalization nonetheless. They, like others of the same ilk, never refer to anything but laws to make their definition of natural born, and never speak to the meaning or application of the most operative word in all of this - "natural".

I also find it interesting that Katyal and Clement build their case when contradicting themselves. On one hand, referring to The Naturalization Act of 1790, they acknowledge that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States". On the other hand, they then in short order state "the Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. So citizens becomes mothers, not because that's what congress said in 1790, but because that serves their purpose and agenda and because they know that such a small change will go completely unnoticed by anybody other than someone that has spent some time studying the issue.

It is this kind of thing that makes it virtually impossible to get any traction. Speaking only of Cruz, here we have a fellow that doesn't even have a U.S. birth certificate, that is naturalized even by a casual reading of the Act of 1952, that is at least Canadian and probably also Cuban at birth, and that even according to the Department of State's website would need to be born in the U.S. to be eligible. A fellow that claims to have renounced his Canadian citizenship but has produced no evidence that such formality has taken place or explained why that is necessary or how that makes him natural born, and whose mother claims to be a citizen by birth but for which no verification of that birth produced (was she also a Canadian citizen when he was born?). When have we ever had a candidate, let alone a nominee or an actual president, that was born in a foreign country? And yet, not a peep from the media. He's eligible - because he says so? Or because people like Katyal and Clement say so, without any challenge whatsoever? Thank you Barack Obama and the sympathetic, must be PC, media. Now it's not a question of who's eligible, it's "who's not"? And even then, no discussion of eligibility anymore.

Your writings and analysis are brilliant. But, I fear this is the proverbial "shoveling sh*t against the tide" in the post Obama political world.

phil stone said...

Sure made the Harvard Law Review look like it was printed on TP. The meaning of NBC is obvious to the most casual observer after reading Minor from 1875. It makes me sad that so-called educated people have no common sense. Thank you Mario for your patience in trying to educate people who have opinions based on wishful thinking. Old Marine Phil Stone

Chief said...

Mario, is Cruz even a US citizen? Do we know he ever went through the naturalization process since he entered the US or was he considered a dual citizen because of his mother's US citizenship? Can his mother's citizenship abroad bestow her citizenship on him at birth. The US Navy use to teach us if you had a child abroad you needed to register that birth with the US Embassy in that country for the child to be recognized a US citizen, can you clarify that for me? Thanks!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Chief,

See https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html.

" The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship."

Robert Laity said...

Fogbow Foggy, Those who usurp the Presidency during time of war are guilty of Espionage against the USA and are Spies under 10USC, The UCMJ S906.A106. Cruz or Rubio face prosecution under Military Law should they enter into the Office of the Presidency by fraud during time of war. We are in a time of war at this time. The UCMJ provision covers "ANY Person" who is "found lurking" in any place, during war time, without authorization, wherein the conduct of such war is engaged in. Obama is in this situation since he is a usurper and we are at war. Cruz or Rubio upon taking the Oath of Office for the Presidency become spies the instant they open their mouths to say the last word of that oath.

natural born citizen party said...

Trump is interested party or necessary party seeking certification of question by USCA Circuits to SCOTUS by all USCA circuits -- starting with First and Third Circuits with mandamus of NH Primary voter polling place notices in New Hampshire Tuesday that the definition of natural born citizen is unsettled law and is awaiting SCOTUS response to Rule 19 Certification of this question.